6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Vienna, Austria.
7.  On 19 August 1949 the Slovenska Bistrica Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Slovenski Bistrici) convicted the applicant's father in a criminal trial and ordered the forfeiture of his property to the State.
On 25 June 1991 the Slovenia declared independence.
On 16 September 1991 the District Prosecutor lodged a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) seeking a reversal of the 1949 judgment.
On 11 November 1991 the Supreme Court allowed the request and quashed the conviction.
8.  On 22 January 1992, further to the Supreme Court's judgment, the applicant, his mother and his siblings (“the plaintiffs”) instituted proceedings against the Slovenske Konjice Municipality and two companies in the Maribor Basic Court, Slovenska Bistrica Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota v Slovenski Bistrici) seeking restitution of the movable and immovable property forfeited to the State by the 1949 judgment.
9.  On 27 October 1993 the court issued a partial decision upholding the plaintiffs' claim in part. On 20 January 1994, following this decision, the court ordered that the plaintiffs' names be registered in the Land Registry as the owners of the returned property.
10.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.
11.  On 29 November 1994 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions.
12.  On 1 January 1995 the Slovenska Bistrica Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Slovenski Bistrici) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.
13.  On 23 February 1995 the court held a hearing and the plaintiffs amended their claim so as to seek restitution of a part of the property also from the newly established municipalities of Zreče and Vitanje.
14.  On 24 October 1995 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions.
15.  On 6 November 1995 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions and amended their claim. They named the Republic of Slovenia as an additional defendant.
16.  On 11 December 1995 the court held a hearing and the case was settled in part.
17.  On 14 November 1995, 12 December 1996, 16 June 1998 and 9 March 1999 the plaintiffs filed supervisory complaints due to the excessive length of the proceedings.
18.  On 27 June 1996 the applicants lodged preliminary written submissions seeking compensation from the Republic of Slovenia for the property which could not be returned in natura.
19.  On 7 May 1999 the plaintiffs withdrew their claim in part.
20.  On 22 June 1999 the court held a hearing and joined the proceedings with another set of proceedings between the same parties. The court requested the plaintiffs to furnish some documents concerning the property sought and its ownership.
21.  On 16 July and 23 November 1999 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions and amended their claim so as to seek restitution of property and compensation from the Zreče Municipality and the Republic of Slovenia.
22.  On 30 November 1999 the court held a hearing and appointed an expert in construction engineering and an expert in agriculture.
23.  On 7 January 2000 the plaintiffs submitted the list of all the property sought as it existed at the material time.
24.  On 23 February 2000 the appointed expert in construction engineering delivered his opinion and on 20 September 2000 the expert in agriculture did the same. Upon request of the plaintiffs, the court sought additional opinions from the appointed experts.
25.  On 24 April 2001 the court held a hearing.
26.  On 18 February 2002 the appointed expert in construction engineering delivered an additional opinion. Since the appointed expert in agriculture died, the court appointed a new expert who delivered an expert opinion on 26 March 2002.
27.  On 23 April 2002 the court held a hearing. The Public Prosecutor's Office, which was representing the defendants in the case, acknowledged the foundation of the claim.
28.  The hearing scheduled for 11 June 2002 was cancelled at the request of the applicants.
29.  On 27 June 2002 the court held a hearing, which was adjourned at the defendants' request. The plaintiffs specified their claim as to the amount and form of restitution of property sought.
30.  On 16 September 2002, upon receiving comments from the defendants, the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions.
31.  On 17 September 2002 the court held a hearing and upheld the plaintiffs' motion to disjoin the claim laid to one plot of land.
32.  On 3 October 2002 the court delivered a written judgment ordering the Republic of Slovenia to pay the applicants damages in the amount of 109,636,373.70 tolars (approximately 457,500 euros). This decision became final on 25 October 2002.
33.  The proceedings with regard to the disjoined claim continued under a new application number. The court scheduled several hearings which were all cancelled at the request of the parties who attempted to settle the case. However, no settlement was reached.
34.  On 26 September 2003 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions.
35.  On 28 September 2004 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint an expert in geodesy. The expert was appointed two days later.
36.  On 22 October 2004 the court held a hearing.
37.  On 21 January 2005 the court appointed an expert in urbanism. She delivered her opinion on 9 May 2005.
38.  On 26 September 2005 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions specifying their claims.
39.  On 29 November 2005 the court held a hearing and heard the appointed expert. The court upheld the claim in part and ordered the defendants to pay damages. The decision was served on the plaintiffs on 23 December 2005.
40.  At an undetermined time the plaintiffs appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru). The proceedings are still pending.
41.  At an undetermined time, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ptuj District Court (Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju) against the Republic of Slovenia seeking pecuniary damages for the loss of profit incurred because he was unable to use property since the forfeiture. The proceedings are still pending.